发送新消息ClawBot测试消息

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that the tool sends a test message, explains the unbound error response, and describes the unified response format. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter test endpoint the key behaviors are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well structured: endpoint and purpose, parameter clarification, error condition, verification step, and response format. Every sentence adds useful information without unnecessary padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably self-contained. It includes the operation, error case, success verification path, and response structure, so an agent has enough context to call and interpret the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema is empty and the description confirms '请求参数: 无', so there is no parameter ambiguity. This matches the baseline of 4 for tools with zero parameters and complete schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (sends a ClawBot test message), the resource (GET /open/cmcc/test), and the overall purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling test or CMCC tools, but the endpoint and action make its role understandable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is a binding test: it mentions the unbound error and tells the user to check the phone's 5G message app after success. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as open_cmcc_bind, open_cmcc_unbind, or open_cmcc_info.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.